Re: (OPE-L) Re: is value labour?

[clyder@xxxxxxxxxx]

My impression of Kliman's 'anti-dualist' interpretation
of the transformation problem was that it did involve
a conflation of value with exchange value.
Quoting Paul Zarembka <zarembka@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Sorry, my typo.  It should have been "neither Rubin nor Kliman", not
> Laibman (but he doesn't wish to confuse value with exchange value either).
>
> Paul
>
> ***********************************************************************
> "Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists", Vol. 20
> RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science
> ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
>
> On Fri, 23 May 2003 glevy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Paul Z wrote on May 23:
> >
> > >> Value is first identified with exchange value, ...
> > > But neither Rubin nor Laibman do this.  See:
> > > Rubin, I. I. 1927, "Abstract Labor and Value in Marx's System",
> > > translated by K. Gilbert, Capital and Class, Volume 5, Summer 1978, pp.
> > > 107-139.
> > > Kliman, A. J. 2000, Marx's Concept of Intrinsic Value", Historical
> > > Materialism, No. 6, pp. 89-113.
> >
> > Did you mean to write "neither Rubin nor Laibman nor Kliman"
> > or when you wrote 'Laibman' was that a typo and did you intend
> > to write 'Kliman'?
> >
> > I don't recall, off-hand, the title of the paper by David L
> > that included a critique of other interpretations, including
> > VFT and the TSSI, but I recall that it was presented at a
> > IWGVT a few years ago -- although it's not at the IWGVT web
> > site, I believe.
> >
> > In solidarity, Jerry
> >
> >
> >
>
>